Tubing Pressure drops with Compressible Fluids

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on calculating tubing pressure drops for compressible fluids, specifically oxygen at 20 PSIG and 10 SLPM over a distance of 200 feet. The user employs the Darcy-Weisbach equation, utilizing Bellos for friction factor calculations, and adheres to a 10% pressure drop rule for accuracy. An Excel workbook was developed to segment the tubing run, allowing for a more precise calculation of pressure drops across multiple segments. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding fluid dynamics and the limitations of traditional methods when dealing with compressible fluids.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Darcy-Weisbach equation
  • Familiarity with friction factor calculations (Bellos method)
  • Basic knowledge of fluid dynamics and compressible flow
  • Proficiency in Excel for automation and calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore advanced fluid dynamics concepts related to compressible flow
  • Learn about the ideal gas law and its application in pressure drop calculations
  • Investigate alternative methods for calculating pressure drops in tubing systems
  • Study the effects of viscosity and Reynolds number on flow resistance
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, particularly mechanical and chemical engineers, fluid dynamics specialists, and anyone involved in the design and analysis of tubing systems for compressible fluids.

Dullard
Messages
560
Reaction score
465
TL;DR
Is this a valid technique?
I am a poor, dumb EE often stuck with the odd plumbing calculation. I am often asked questions like: "what size tubing do I need to convey 10 SLPM of 20 PSIG oxygen 200' with no more than 2 PSI pressure drop?"

I generally treat the fluid as in-compressible and use Darcy-Weisbach (I like Bellos for friction factor). So long as the pressure drop is < 10% of the inlet absolute pressure, my calcs correspond pretty well with reality. I try to stay conservative (It's not usually obvious when a tube is a little bit too big).

I had a situation this week where my installers were certain that they knew what they needed (they didn't ask me anything). They screwed up - the tubing will have to be replaced. When I did my normal calculation on what they actually installed it was too small by my standards, but should have worked (just - if I ignored the 10% rule). This got me thinking that I'd like to be able to (semi-accurately) go a bit beyond my previous comfort zone. I created an excel workbook (with some automation) to break a tubing run into 'n' segments. The outlet conditions for one segment are the inlet conditions for the next. This (mathematically) appears to work pretty well: The calculated pressure drop increases with 'n' and converges (increases at a decreasing rate). I'd appreciate any comments on the accuracy/validity/limits of this approach. If I'm missing an alternative approach, I'd love to hear about that, too. Thanks.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
That sounds exactly like the approach that I vaguely remember from undergrad fluids class. Typical design problems require only enough design calculations to make sure that a tube is big enough, but not grossly oversized, so high accuracy is rarely needed. Capillary tubes in air conditioning systems may have a tight flow resistance tolerance.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and Dullard
I would approach this differently. From Darcy-Weisbach, we have $$-\frac{dp}{dx}=\frac{\rho v^2 }{2D}f(Re,\epsilon)$$where f is the friction factor. The velocity is related to the mass flow rate m by
$$v=\frac{4m}{\rho \pi D^2}$$So, combining these two equations, we have: $$-\frac{dp}{dx}=\frac{8m^2 }{\rho \pi^2 D^5}f(Re,\epsilon)$$and $$Re=\frac{4m}{\pi D\mu}$$where ##\mu## is the viscosity. Everything on the right hand side is constant, except the density. But, from the ideal gas law, we have: $$\rho=\frac{pM}{RT}$$where M is the molecular weight. Substituting this yields:$$-\frac{dp^2}{dx}=\frac{16RTm^2 }{M \pi^2 D^5}f(Re,\epsilon)$$Integrating this yields: $$p^2=p_0^2-\frac{16RTm^2L }{M \pi^2 D^5}f(Re,\epsilon)$$
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Dullard
I was sure that an elegant solution was possible - I posted the question because I thought "Chestermiller will know how to do this." I follow what you did - but I never would have gotten there by myself. Thank you very much!

Jim
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K